black&asl&as&aseparate&variety& · preposition/interrog. 107 35.5 .582...
TRANSCRIPT
10/26/10
1
Black ASL as a Separate Variety
Joseph Hill, Carolyn McCaskill, Ceil Lucas and Robert Bayley
TISLR 2010 Purdue University
Black ASL project at a glance
• The objecJves of this four-‐year project are: – To create a filmed corpus of conversaJonal Black ASL as it is used in the South. The focus is on the structure and history of Southern Black ASL because that region is where the most radical segregaJon occurred in the educaJon of Black and White deaf children, creaJng the condiJons for the development of a separate language variety.
– To provide a descripJon of the linguisJc features that make Black ASL recognizable as a disJnct variety of ASL and of the history of the educaJon of Black Deaf children.
– To disseminate the project findings in the form of teaching materials and instrucJonal resources.
Basic QuesJons for the Project (1)
• What are the features of the variety of ASL that people call “Black ASL”?
• There are many anecdotal reports about its existence – “Yeah, I see something different…”; and, we have considerable evidence of differences in individual signs (lexical variaJon).
• Hairston and Smith (1983) – there is “a Black way of signing used by Black deaf people in their own cultural milieu-‐ among families and friends, in social gatherings, and in deaf clubs” (55).
Basic QuesJons for the Project (2)
• There also exists a 50-‐year tradiJon of research on African American English (AAE), with unique features idenJfied at all levels of the language – phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon – showing that AAE is a disJnct variety of English (see Mufwene et al. 1998 and Green 2004 for reviews).
• Can the same kind of unique features that have been idenJfied for AAE be idenJfied for Black ASL, to show that it is a disJnct variety of ASL?
10/26/10
2
FormaJon of Language VarieJes
• How do varieJes of language (dialects) come about ? – J. Rickford (1999) explains that “all languages, if they have enough speakers, have dialects-‐ regional or social varieJes that develop when people are separated by geographic or social barriers.” (African American Vernacular English. Blackwell. p. 320)
Geographic factors
• IsolaJon of one community from another; geographic and poliJcal boundaries – e.g., rivers, mountains, swamps, borders;
• Pajerns of sejlement, where people live (or are allowed to live). – “… being isolated from other speakers tends to allow a dialect to develop in its own way, through its own innovaJons that are different from those of other dialects” (Language files, 10th ed., p. 419).
Social factors
• Language varieJes can be defined by factors – Socioeconomic status – Age – Gender – Race – Ethnicity
• Examples of social factors – Differences in working-‐class and middle-‐class language – Caste-‐defined differences in India – AAE – Southwest Spanish
8
Founding and DesegregaJon of Schools for the Deaf (1)
State 1.White school
2. Black sch./ dept.
3. Desegregati
on
Years bet. 1 & 2
Years bet. 2 & 3
DC, KDES 1857 1857, dept. 1958 0 101
N. Carolina 1845 1868 1967 23 99
Maryland 1868 1872 1956 4 84
Tennessee 1845 1881, dept. 1965 36 84
Georgia 1846 1882 1965 36 83
Mississippi 1854 1882, dept. 1965 28 83
S. Carolina 1849 1883, dept. 1966 34 83
Kentucky 1823 1884, dept. 1954-60 61 70
Florida 1885 1885 1965 0 80
10/26/10
3
9
Founding and DesegregaJon of Schools for the Deaf (2)
State 1.White school
2. Black sch./ dept
3. Desegregation
Years bet. 1 & 2
Years bet. 2 & 3
Texas 1857 1887 1965 30 78
Arkansas 1850 1868 1967 23 78
Alabama 1858 1892 1968 34 76
Missouri 1861 1888, dept 1954 37 66
Kansas 1861 1888, dept 1954 27 66
Virginia 1839 1909 1965 (2 schs) 70 56
Oklahoma 1898 1909, dept 1962 11 53
Louisiana 1852 1938 1978 86 40
W.Virginia 1870 1926 1956 56 30
Timing of Establishment and IntegraJon
• The average number of years between the establishment of the White school and the establishment of the Black school (or department ) is 33 – Striking excepJons: Kentucky (61), West Virginia (56), Virginia
(70) and Louisiana (86). • The average number of years between the establishment of
the Black school (or department) and desegregaJon is 72.8 – The striking excepJons are Washington, DC (101) and North
Carolina (99) – Note that Louisiana is only 40 because there was no school for
Black children unJl 1938 and desegregaJon did not occur unJl 24 years aner Brown v. Board of EducaJon
CondiJons favoring the formaJon of Black ASL
• Factors idenJfied – Geographic separaJon and isolaJon of school locaJons
– Social division based on race • ComplicaJng factors
– Who the teachers were – The general context of oralism – What kind of language the children were bringing to school
Current study • Sites
– North Carolina (1869); Texas (1887); Arkansas (1887); Alabama (1892); Virginia (1909); Louisiana (1938)
– NaJonal Black Deaf Advocate (NBDA) conference in St. Louis, Missouri in 2007
• ParJcipants – Signers over 55 who ajended segregated schools – Signers under 35 who ajended desegregated schools
• Data collecJon – Filming free conversaJon, interviews, and word elicitaJon – Interviews that focus on language use and school history
• Analysis – Analyzing the tapes for specific linguisJc features and for accounts of
language use and school history
10/26/10
4
Black ASL Mosaic
13
Amount of mouthing
Location: Forehead location vs lowered
Use of role shifting
Size of signing space
Handedness: 2-handed vs. 1 handed signs
Vocabulary differences
Incorporation of AAE into
signing
Use of repetition
Handedness: previous studies
• In Woodward and DeSanJs (1977), Frishberg (1975), and Lucas et al. (2007), factors have been idenJfied as significant: – Contact with face and body – Preceding and following signs – GrammaJcal category – Parts of the target signs
• Outward movement, high/low locaJon, complex movement
– Social factors • Race, age, and region
Handedness: our study
• Signs that can be produced with 2 hands or 1 hand unremarkably – Sign examples: REMEMBER, DON’T-‐KNOW
• Data Analyzed – 818 tokens from free conversaJons, interviews, and NBDA conversaJons
– MulJvariate analysis with Varbrul
Results (applicaJon value = 1 handed)
Factor Group Factor N % Weight
Contact Contact 286 44.8 .603
No contact 532 29.3 .444
Preceding sign Pause or 1 handed 565 39.6 .554
2 handed 253 23.7 .381
Following sign 1 handed 256 45.3 .598
Pause 288 33.0 .492
2 handed 274 26.6 .416
Age Young (35–) 349 39.5 .552
Old (55+) 469 31.1 .461
Total Input 818 34.7 .336
Log likelihood = –497.783, chi-square/cell = 0.9063.
10/26/10
5
Handedness: results
• Black signers use more two-‐handed variants than White signers
• Older Black signers use more two variants than younger Black signers
• Younger signers tend to use 1-‐handed signs. • When compared with White signers in an earlier study (Lucas et al. 2001), Black signers always prefer 2-‐handed signs over 1-‐handed.
LocaJon: previous studies
• Frishberg (1975) – There is an historical tendency for signs to “move down” to the central signing space.
• Liddell & Johnson (1989) – “many signs which are produced with contact at the SFH [side of forehead] locaJon in formal signing may be produced in casual signing at the CK [cheek] locaJon. Similarly, signs produced at the CK locaJon (including those moved from the SFH locaJon) may be produced at the JW [jaw] locaJon. These same signs also appear at Jmes without contact in the area immediately in front of the iNK [ipsilateral neck] locaJon (253).
LocaJon: previous studies
• Lucas et al. (2001) – GrammaJcal funcJon is strongest constraint
• Noun, verb, adjecJve disfavor lowered forms, preposiJon and interrogaJve favor lowered forms.
– Preceding locaJon • Body favors lowered forms, head disfavors.
– Following contact • No contact favors lowered forms, contact disfavors.
– Social factors • White signers, both working class and middle class, slightly favor lowered forms (Varbrul weight .555).
• Middle class Black signers disfavor lowered forms (.445). • Working class Black signers disfavor lowered forms (.314).
LocaJon: our study
• Our focus here is on signs such as KNOW, DON’T-‐KNOW, WHY, FOR, TEACH, IMAGINE, EDUCATION, SUSPECT, REMEMBER, SEARCH.
• In citaJon (i.e. dicJonary) form, such signs are signed at the level of the forehead but in actual use they can also be signed at lower levels ranging from the face to the space in front of the signer.
• Data Analyzed – 877 tokens from free conversaJons, interviews, and NBDA conversaJons
10/26/10
6
LocaJon: Results, LinguisJc Constraints (App. Value= lowered variant)
Factor Group Factor N % Weight Grammatical Compound 47 48.9 .716
category Noun 111 39.6 .602
Preposition/interrog. 107 35.5 .582
Adjective/adverb 60 21.7 .464
Verb 552 25.0 .448
Preceding contact Body, contact 150 29.3 .562
Body, no contact 419 27.7 .505
Head, contact 106 26.4 .492
Head, no contact 54 22.2 .379
Total Input 877 29.2 .260
LocaJon: results
• Black signers use more non-‐lowered variants than White signers
• Older Black signers use non-‐lowered variants than younger Black signers
• Regional differences – Texas, Alabama, Virginia, and North Carolina signers use more lowered variants than Arkansas and Louisiana signers
Signing space: previous claims
• Lewis et al. (1995: 24) – MenJon the use of space in descripJon of a person’s answer to
a quesJon as to why he is wearing African American clothing • Aramburo (1989: 115)
– Reports that when Black Deaf Signers converse with Black Deaf Signers, they use larger signing space than they do with Black hearing, White Deaf, and White hearing signers
• Tabak (2006) – Discusses black children’s signing at the BDO (Blind, Deaf,
Orphan) school in AusJn, TX – Reports that the signs produced by BDO students were larger
than those of their white peers – Describes no data as the basis for this observaJon
Signing space: our study
• Videos of Black and White signers were randomly selected and 50 signs/signer were analyzed as follows.
• GrammaJcal category of signs were coded – Noun, adjecJve/adverb, plain verb, depicJon/locaJve verb, indicaJng verb, funcJon signs
• Intensity of signs – Tensions in the arms, torso movement, eye gaze at the co-‐interlocutor
• Genre – Elicited narraJve: retelling of wordless cartoons with a lot of acJon
– Free narraJve: stories spontaneously told by signers • ImposiJon of a transparent grid on all videos
10/26/10
7
Signing space: elicited narraJve example Signing space: locaJon code
V: Above the top of the head
L: Below the waist
h: A foot away from the side of the body
H: More than a foot away from the body
U: Unmarked space within the boundary
V
L
h h H H U
Signing space: results
• LinguisJc factors – GrammaJcal category is significant for both Black and White signers
• DepicJng and locaJve verbs and indicaJng verbs were most likely to extend beyond the unmarked space.
• AdjecJves and adverbs slightly favored the use of a marked variant by Black signers but slightly disfavored by White signers.
• Plain verbs, nouns, pronouns, and funcJon signs were most likely stayed within the boundary of the unmarked space.
– Lijle difference in the results of intensity of signs between Black and White signers
Signing space: Race by age
Percentage of signs beyond the usual signing space
10/26/10
8
Role-‐shining • Previous research
– Metzger and Mather (2004) • The use of constructed dialogue and constructed acJon of Black and White
signers • IndicaJon that Black signers use them more onen then White signers
• Our study – 24 elicited narraJves and 21 free narraJves – 7 different events
• Constructed acJon (CA); constructed dialogue (CD); constructed acJon/body parJJoning (CABP); constructed dialogue/body parJJoning (CDBP); constructed acJon/constructed dialogue (CACD); constructed acJon/narraJve (CANA); constructed dialogue/narraJve (CDNA)
• Result – Some indicaJon that Black signers use more constructed dialogue,
however, the data show a great deal of individual variaJon. Further research is needed.
RepeJJon: results
• Marked difference between Black signers and White signers
• Marked difference between older and younger Black signers, with more repeJJons among the older signers – this seems to be a feature of Black ASL that is changing.
• RepeJJon serves a pragmaJc funcJon is supported by the fact repeJJons in all grammaJcal categories are predominantly declaraJve statements rather than quesJons.
Mouthing • Tabak (2006)
– Graduates of BDO (the Texan insJtuJon for Black deaf children along with Black blind and orphan children) mouth less than graduates of TSD (Texas School for the Deaf, historically white)
– Seems to be a personal observaJon • Our study
– Instances of voiceless mouthing of English • Full mouthing • Light mouthing
– iniJal consonant or a consonant and vowel combinaJon » Examples: ‘pay ajenJon’ mouth just the iniJal ‘p’ and the iniJal ‘a’ in the phrase;
the iniJal consonant and vowel in ‘wife’, “wi”
• No mouthing – 26 ten minute conversaJons from a set of 95 clips
• 7 for older Black signers, 6 for younger Black signers, 7 for older White signers, and 6 for younger White signers.
– CategorizaJon of tokens • Noun, adjecJve/adverbs, verbs/predicate, WH words, funcJon words, phrases,
reacJve tokens
Mouthing: results
• Nouns were the most frequently mouthed, followed by plain verbs and predicates, phrases, and finally adjecJve and adverbs.
• Some funcJon words were mouthed, as well as a small number of WH words.
• Some evidence that older Black signers mouth less than other signers, however, further research is necessary with a larger sample size.
10/26/10
9
Contact with AAE
• Borrowing of expressions from AAE, e.g. “Girl”, “My bad” • Examples spontaneously produced in interviews and free
conversaJons in our videotaped • Black signers incorporate AAE lexical items into their
signing. – STOP TRIPPING – STUPID #FOOL – WHASSUP – GIRL, PLEASE – #DANG
• Younger Black signers incorporate more AAE lexical items than their elders, possibly due to media exposure.
Lexicon: signs for common items
• Previous study: Woodward et al. (1976) – examined a subset of signs including MOVIE, RABBIT, LEMON,
COLOR, SILLY, PEACH, and PEANUT that can all be produced either on the face or on the hands
– Found that White signers produced more of the face variants than did Black signers.
• Our study – Differences in Black and White signs for common items and
concepts, e.g. MOVIE, COLOR, RABBIT, AFRICA [added by us] – ElicitaJon method
• Pictures of the items – Results
• Lexical variaJon persists, but younger Black signers use fewer “Black variants than their elders”
Lexicon: older signs
• Lexical items varied by regions • Collected from free conversaJons and interviews
• SelecJve lexical variaJon examples – Noun: SODA, SHOES, SCHOOL, CORNFLAKE, BATHROOM, MOVIE, TOWEL, BIRTHDAY
– Verb/Predictate: FLIRT, PEE, SHARP (as in ‘sharp dresser’)
Conclusion
• Back to the quesJon: – Can the same kind of unique features that have been idenJfied for AAE be idenJfied for Black ASL, to show that it is a disJnct variety of ASL?
• The answer is yes and no. • In Black ASL, we have not idenJfied unique other than the incorporaJon of AAE and lexical items.
• Thus far, the differences between Black ASL and White ASL are quanJtaJve rather than qualitaJve.
10/26/10
10
The History and Structure of Black ASL: Research Team
• Project Co-‐Directors – Ceil Lucas, LinguisJcs, Gallaudet University – Carolyn McCaskill, ASL & Deaf Studies, Gallaudet Univ. – Robert Bayley, LinguisJcs, UC Davis
• Graduate Research Assistants – Joseph Hill, Roxanne King, and Anika Stephen, Gallaudet
University • Undergraduate Research Assistants
– Stephanie Johnson and TaWanda Barkley, Gallaudet University • Technical Consultant
– Randall Hogue, Gallaudet University • Community RepresentaJve and Archivist
– Pam Baldwin, Washington, DC
Acknowledgments
• The research reported here was funded by the Spencer FoundaJon and the NaJonal Science FoundaJon, whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
• Special thanks to the members of the African American Deaf community who generously shared with us the richness of their experience and language.
Black ASL Project Website • hjp://blackaslproject.gallaudet.edu/
References • Aramburo, A. 1989. SociolinguisJc aspects of the Black Deaf community. In C. Lucas (ed.), The
SociolinguisJcs of the Deaf Community. New York: Academic Press. 103-‐122. • Bayley, R., C. Lucas, and M. Rose. 2000. VariaJon in American Sign Language: The case of DEAF.
Journal of Sociolinguis/cs 4: 81-‐107. • Hairston, E., and L. Smith. 1983. Black and Deaf in America: Are We that Different? Silver Spring,
MD: TJ Publishers. • Lewis, J., C. Palmer and L. Williams. 1995. Existence of and axtudes toward Black variaJons of sign
language. In L. Byers, J. Chaiken, and M. Mueller (eds.), CommunicaJon Forum 1995. Washington, DC: Department of LinguisJcs, Gallaudet University. 17-‐48.
• Lucas, C., A. Goeke, R. Briesacher, and R. Bayley. 2007. Phonological VariaJon: 2 Hands or 1? Paper presented at NWAV 36, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, October.
• Lucas, C., R. Bayley, and C. Valli. 2001. Sociolinguis/c Varia/on in American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
• Metzger, M., and S. Mather. 2004. Constructed Dialogue and Constructed AcJon in ConversaJonal NarraJves in ASL. Poster presented at the Conference on TheoreJcal Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 8), Barcelona, September.
• Rickford, J. R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolu/on, Educa/onal Implica/ons. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Tabak, J. 2006. Significant Gestures-‐ A History of American Sign Language. Westport, CT: Praeger